As the scale of the mess that Theresa May has created for herself and the country on Brexit becomes clear, Nigel Moore points out that we could have already left the EU while carrying on commercial activities largely as before. Why was this simple, off-the-shelf option not taken?

It is now two years and four months since the British people voted to leave the European Union. If our politicians had made wiser choices, we could have already left the EU while carrying on commercial activities largely as before.

The UK could have already been well on the way to free trade agreements with old and new trading partners. The UK together with its partners inside the European Free Trade Association (EFTA), the Visegrad countries and the European Commission could have started exploring adaptation of the EEA to better suit emerging needs.

The jurisdiction of the European Court of Justice could have ended. The Common Fisheries Policy could have ended. We could have started limiting freedom of movement to suit our interests. The UK could be once again joining the countries at the top table of the World Trade Organization (WTO) and other global bodies to promote its interests.

None of this has happened, although perfectly feasible – simply through continued membership of the European Economic Area (EEA). Why was this sensible option not taken? Largely because of the antics of David Cameron, Theresa May, and the wider Conservative Party.

A FINE MESS…

Mr Cameron as prime minister prevented the Civil Service from preparing a viable and practical exit plan for leaving the political control of the EU. Such a plan would almost certainly have included retaining, even temporarily, membership of the Single Market (and wider EEA) through re-joining EFTA. This would have avoided many of the problems inherent in both no-deal, and Mrs May’s unworkable, Brexit-in-name-only Chequers Plan and White Paper. But instead of triggering Article 50 immediately, as he had claimed he would do, Mr Cameron resigned.

Once prime minister, Mrs May dithered and delayed in triggering Article 50. But nor did she use this time to develop a viable exit plan to leave the political EU whilst retaining frictionless trade. Instead, in her speech at Lancaster House on 17 January 2017 she recklessly announced her decision that the UK would also leave the Single Market. Her declared grounds related to control of immigration and the indivisibility of the ‘four freedoms’ of the Single Market. Whilst this is true for EU Member States, it is untrue for members of EFTA participating in the EEA who can take unilateral action by implementing Article 112 (the Safeguard Measures) in the EEA Agreement.

The Conservative Party has only added to this mess. During their increasingly bitter internecine conflict, the various factions within the party have developed scenarios that are usually poorly informed, and often far from realistic or achievable. This has hampered discussion of the important issues and examination of viable options for leaving the EU.

There are some bizarre claims that need debunking: that frictionless trade is possible in the event of no-deal by falling back on World Trade Organisation (WTO) rules; that a ‘bonfire’ of EU regulations is possible; and the notion that the EU will cave-in at the last minute.

WTO ‘RULES’ DO NOT ENABLE FRICTIONLESS TRADE

WTO ‘rules’ are something of a misnomer. These ‘rules’ are merely basic principles to facilitate international trade. They have to be incorporated into more detailed or prescriptive rules, regulations and laws by WTO members. Perhaps foremost amongst these principles is that of non–discrimination. WTO principles can be circumvented in exceptional circumstances, such as emergencies or for national security.

The WTO does not have powers to enforce its principles (or the resulting laws of WTO members) should they be contravened. However, mechanisms for redress do exist in WTO-compliant treaty provisions, although it can take some time (years) before sanctions for loss can be applied by an aggrieved party.

The Single Market (and wider EEA) has a legalistic, top down, centralised bureaucratic structure to control access, conformity assessment, and market surveillance. Protectionist as they are, the EU’s laws for the Single Market are WTO-compliant, since they apply equally to all third-countries outside the EEA. Once we’ve left the EU, the UK will also become a third-country, subject to the same EU/EEA legislation as all other third-countries.

Trying to change status from Single Market member to third-country at short notice would inevitably involve frictions. Exports to the EEA would consequently fall drastically.

NO ‘BONFIRE’ OF GLOBAL REGULATIONS

It has been estimated by EFTA that 90% of EU regulations affecting the functioning of the Single Market originate from higher global bodies such as the WTO and the International Organization for Standardization (ISO). If we wished to trade internationally whilst being a member of the WTO we would have to retain these regulations, although we could potentially implement the higher-level global standards and principles in different ways to the EU.

The body of laws governing the Single Market (and wider EEA) amounts to about a quarter of the whole EU acquis. Thus, we could potentially amend or scrap the remaining three-quarters of EU laws to suit our interests – whether or not we are in the EEA.

This stands in dramatic contrast to Mrs May’s Chequers Plan (and the EU’s demands in response), where it is clear that many (if not all existing and future) EU laws will remain and be enforceable within the UK, probably by the European Court of Justice (ECJ).

LEGALLY, THE EU CANNOT CAVE IN AT THE LAST MINUTE

The EU cannot easily change its existing, legally-based arrangements for governing the Single Market to accommodate the UK. This would be an exception that would create a precedent for other third-countries, going against its existing direction of travel over many years. It would also contravene basic WTO principles on non-discrimination.

In addition, there would need to be agreement by all remaining Member States both to amend large amounts of existing EU legislation, and to approve different terms of reference for their negotiating team led by Mr Barnier. At best, the EU could agree to temporary emergency measures to suit its interests, including making severe reciprocal demands of the UK.

Meanwhile Mrs May is becoming increasingly delusional, obdurate and making fruitless efforts to sell her Chequers Plan for Brexit-in-name-only to European leaders. They cannot legally accept it.

…………………….

Note from CIB: further information about the EEA/EFTA option as a possible stepping stone to a Clean Brexit is available in our pamphlet Brexit Reset.

The Government’s recent White Paper entitled The Future Relationship between the United Kingdom and the European Union is unworkable, risky wishful thinking as far as frictionless trade with the Single Market (and wider European Economic Area, EEA) is concerned. The White Paper also fails to take cognisance of how the European Union (EU) and Single Market functions, and its direction of travel, which makes it unlikely that the EU can accept it. If the EU did accept these insubstantial, ‘cherry picking’ proposals, businesses and regulatory authorities, etc. would struggle to make them work.

This short examination does not consider Facilitated Customs Arrangements etc. It is difficult to work out exactly what is being proposed and how it will operate. However, it appears to be unproven and to increase the complexity and costs of importing and exporting goods and services.

Vague unreality without any practical solutions

A major shortcoming of the White Paper is the lack of detail. It is unclear what the various terms used and their proposals actually mean in practice, what they cover and what they omit. There is also no recognition of any problems or limiting issues that need to be addressed, and no consideration of timescales or resources needed to turn the theory into reality. Important terms not explained include: goods, services, Common Rulebook, Free Trade Area for goods,approvals and authorisations, ‘sit alongside’, ‘open and fair’ and ‘participation in EU agencies’. These are critical to understanding and avoiding impracticalities, ambiguities, arguments (with the EU) and confusion.

Whilst goods and services are to be treated differently, there is no analysis about how they can be separated, which could often be very impractical. The only example of a product, vaguely and briefly considered, is mutual recognition of type approval of motor vehicles, which is itself unlikely to be acceptable to the EU.

The EU’s legal basis for Frictionless Trade in Goods is ignored

The White Paper’s aspiration is for frictionless access for goods – a free trade area part in and part outside the Single Market. There would then be one set of approvals and authorisations for goods to be sold in both markets (UK and Single Market). How this will work is unclear given that EU Directives (the EU Acquis) relating to the Single Market governs how it functions.

The EU’s direction of travel (for the Single Market), is towards harmonised standards, regulations, and enforcement or surveillance through a top-down centralised legalistic and bureaucratic framework. This gives the European Commission and agencies ultimate control inside the Single Market. This is the basis for frictionless trade. The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) incorporates relevant EU Directives into their own body of EFTA/EEA law in order for them to participate in the wider EEA.

Generally there are no deviations from the EU Directives except those permitted within the existing legal regulatory framework. Any change must be incorporated into EU law first. Countries outside the Single Market (and wider EEA) are ‘third’ countries effectively outside EU control or surveillance necessitating appropriate measures regarding imports. The White Paper effectively ignores this and assumes the EU will agree to the changes and the UK exceptionalism being proposed.

The EU’s Directives for Products are ignored

The White Paper does not mention any actual EU/EEA legislation and how it will be affected, nor does it discuss practicalities. There is also no acknowledgement of the EU’s position on trade in goods with ‘third’ countries. The EU’s legally mandated arrangements to control diseases and parasites etc. in imported livestock, products, plants, packaging etc. from ‘third’ countries are largely glossed over.

According to EU law, products of animal origin (meat and meat products) imported into the EU must be inspected (sanitary checks) at Border Inspection Posts (BIPs). For products of plant origin (for plants and plant-derived foods) phytosanitary checks are required at Community Entry Points (CEPs, Designated Points of Entry, DPE).

The White Paper adds a new level of complexity to the Single Market and EEA

The White Paper’s advocacy of regulatory alignment and mutual recognition adds further complexity. It would inevitably require considerable amendment to existing EU Directives covering a wide range of products and associated production, regulatory and conformity assessment and market surveillance. This is far from straightforward or quick given that requirements are effectively intertwined; change one here and there can be a knock-on effect elsewhere. Then there is the creation of new precedents that produce anomalies elsewhere and situations that can be exploited by others to gain an unfair or unreasonable advantage.

Also, more errors and anomalies are likely to occur when time is short to develop revised legislation, standards, conformity assessments, accreditations and market surveillance processes etc. Obviously it is far from certain that the EU will agree to this in any instances. If it did, this would impose new uncertainties and risks where before matters were fairly settled and predictable.

No Go Chaos for Nobos and their Conformity Assessments of Products

Notified Bodies need accreditation for carrying out mandatory independent conformity assessment on a wide range of products to be placed on the market in the EEA. They need separate accreditation (Designated Body, Debo) when carrying out assessments relating to national specific or special cases covered by EU/EEA legislation. The White Paper proposes a Common Rulebook (harmonisation with EU rules) applying to goods to be exported to the Single Market but not to services. Clearly the work of Nobos and Debos are services falling outside any compliance with the EU Rulebook whatever that vague term is supposed to mean in this context; for example, EU Directives with or with European specifications, mandatory conformity assessment, market surveillance etc.

Under the White Paper’s proposals, a new product could be assessed by a Debo and then exported to the EEA where the Debo’s accreditation and product conformity assessment is currently not recognised. Obtaining this recognition raises a host of practical problems, such as who gives the Debo accreditation, how is the Debo assessed, who keeps the register of accredited Debos and test houses, and what should the Debo now include in its product conformity assessment and certification? Where an existing product undergoes a material change requiring further or updated assessment, more difficulties will inevitably result in determining whether this is Debo or Nobo work or a combination and who does what. This complexity and vagueness needs to be resolved or a wide range of UK goods would become non-compliant and could not be exported to the EEA.

So far there is little indication that the UK’s negotiators actually understand much, if anything, about the minutiae of the EU Directives and how the EU/EEA functions. Even if the EU agreed to this White Paper (and this is a very big ‘If’), the resulting outcome is most likely to be more, largely avoidable confusion all round carrying on for years among customers, suppliers, regulators, conformity assessors (e.g. Notified Bodies) and organisations involved in market surveillance. The frequent questions would be “Where do we find the requirements?”, “Must we comply with this requirement?”, “What does this requirement actually mean?”, and “How much is this going to cost us?”

In short, the whole document is seriously deficient and likely to be rejected by the EU.

Whilst it is often stated that Freedom of Movement is a non-negotiable and a fundamental indivisible principle of the Single Market, the truth is actually far more complex. The ‘four freedoms’ are not indivisible for countries outside the EU, such as those who are members of the European Economic Area, (EEA).

Furthermore, the EU has made provision in legally binding and proposed agreements unilaterally to control freedom of movement along with the other freedoms of the Single Market. The UK could do the same if it remained a member of the Single Market (and wider European Economic Area, EEA) by re-joining The European Free Trade Association (EFTA). The same actually applies to the EU’s proposed draft text to the Withdrawal Agreement. Thus Mrs May and her government are, at least in this regard, determined to pursue a Brexit strategy (Brexit in name only) which is far worse than what is actually available utilizing existing established agreements.

The EEA Agreement governs the Single Market (and wider EEA)

The operation of the Single Market (and wider EEA) is set by the EEA Agreement, to which all Member States of the EU and EFTA (excluding Switzerland) are signatories. For the EFTA/EEA members, the EEA Agreement is amended by the addition of Annexes and Protocols. Thus the EFTA countries have bespoke variations on the basic EEA Agreement. EFTA countries also have greater flexibility since powers retained by individual EFTA countries have often been removed from the individual Member States of the EU and transferred to the European Commission or its agencies (acting for the whole EU). Consequently EU Member States often find they cannot act unilaterally, whilst individual EFTA countries can do so and they make use of this freedom to serve their interests.

Within the EEA Agreement Freedom of Movement is Unilaterally Controllable

The Single Market (and wider EEA), has free movement of goods, persons, services and capital as basic principles. However, the EEA Agreement also includes an opt-out which can be applied unilaterally by EFTA countries (see Chapter 4, Safeguard Provisions, Article 112), but obviously not by Members States of the EU. It states:

Safeguard Provisions, Article 112

If serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties of a sectorial or regional nature liable to persist are arising, a Contracting Party may unilaterally take appropriate measures under the conditions and procedures laid down in Article 113.

Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Agreement.

The safeguard measures shall apply with regard to all Contracting Parties.

This opt-out is intended to be “temporary” (until a permanent solution is implemented), but nevertheless can be invoked and maintained in the absence of that permanent solution. It has already been used by Liechtenstein to control immigration and Iceland to control capital flows in the wake of the financial crisis.

The EU’s Ability to Unilaterally Control Freedom of Movement

So useful and/or essential does the EU regard Articles 112 and 114 of the EEA Agreement that, rather than them being toothless window-dressing, it chose to include them virtually unchanged in its draft Withdrawal Agreement, Article 13 (Protocols NI) which states:

Article 13 Safeguards

If the application of this Protocol leads to serious economic, societal or environmental difficulties liable to persist, the Union or the United Kingdom may unilaterally take appropriate measures. Such safeguard measures shall be restricted with regard to their scope and duration to what is strictly necessary in order to remedy the situation. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.

If a safeguard measure taken by the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, in accordance with paragraph 1 creates an imbalance between the rights and obligations under this Protocol, the Union or the United Kingdom, as the case may be, may take such proportionate rebalancing measures as are strictly necessary to remedy the imbalance. Priority shall be given to such measures as will least disturb the functioning of this Protocol.

The EU is intentionally ensuring, whether the UK is in the EEA or not, that the EU can unilaterally restrict immigration into the remaining Member States from the UK. The EU is also agreeing here that the UK can unilaterally restrict immigration from the remaining Member States into the UK.

Implementing the Safeguard Measures Immediately

In the UK, there are permanent economic, infrastructural and societal factors which would justify implementing the existing Safeguard Measures immediately, as of 29th March 2019, when we supposedly leave the EU whilst de facto remaining within the Single Market. Subsequently it would be prudent to negotiate the introduction of specific clauses to enshrine a right to permanent or longer term control.

Why the untruths about Free Movement?

The kindest explanation as to why Freedom of Movement is misrepresented is that many politicians are actually being economical with the truth, and are avoiding the fuller picture which contradicts their claims. They may also fail to understand the subtleties of that fuller picture. This is somewhat obvious in Mrs May’s Lancaster House speech 17th January 2017 where she appears to have accepted some very disingenuous claims about free movement. Here are her words:

But I want to be clear. What I am proposing cannot mean membership of the single market.

European leaders have said many times that membership means accepting the ‘4 freedoms’ of goods, capital, services and people. And being out of the EU but a member of the single market would mean complying with the EU’s rules and regulations that implement those freedoms, without having a vote on what those rules and regulations are. It would mean accepting a role for the European Court of Justice that would see it still having direct legal authority in our country.

This country desperately needs the powers to choose who we should let in and under what circumstances. This was one of the loudest great messages from the Brexit Referendum result. Voters want us to be able to control our borders. To repeat, that power of control is there in legal texts. It could have been grasped by Mrs May and her colleagues in government if they had chosen to do so. They have chosen – at least up to now – instead a path of uncertainty, cave-ins to the EU and potential chaos. It is a price the British people should not have to bear.

With Mrs May having decided to leave the Single Market (and wider European Economic Area, EEA), it could be critical to know if it poses a long term existential threat to our future as a global trading nation. Whilst in a formal sense the EEA will contract after Brexit, it actually wields considerable informal influence over much global trade. Ignore its ramifications at your peril. Could then Mrs May’s government, having decided to leave on somewhat disingenuous grounds, that the four freedoms are indivisible, be unaware of this less obvious consequence?

What is the Single Market (or wider EEA)?

The Single Market provides a common mandatory regulatory framework of European Union (EU) directives (laws), standards, compliance or conformity assessment and market surveillance for many products under a centralised legalistic bureaucratic framework. Thus the quality, safety, environmental impact, energy consumption, and integration with other products can meet common (harmonised) criteria; commonly known as Essential Requirements in directives based on the New or Global Approach. Failure to demonstrate compliance with the Essential Requirements or acceptable (harmonised) standards can prevent a product being placed on the market (in the Single Market or wider EEA) or cause it to be withdrawn. Demonstrating compliance may require independent conformity assessment and certification; typically carried out by independent test houses and qualified notified bodies (Nobos) which in turn are regulated ultimately by the European Commission (or designated agency). (Further information on the EEA see here, here and associated links)

What is a product or service?

Unsurprisingly any product and service is much more than just a collection of parts with some kind of functionality. Those parts, materials comprising those parts, associated services, design, production, testing and inspection processes all have to comply with recognisable and authoritative standards. Whether it is an automobile or safety shoes, there will be standards and reliable means to ensure their compliance, often with some form of mandatory regulation or control. The alternative to these arrangements is very much the Caveat Emptor principle and an inability to benefit from the accumulated experience of producers, regulators and users. Costs can also be higher because of a lack of standardisation.

Not all export markets are the same

Some export markets and customers for certain products and services can be very sophisticated, featuring well-developed regulatory frameworks, facilities and knowledgeable, competent, in-house resources. Then it is a matter of complying with their requirements, their specified standards and their regulatory framework. To offer non-compliant alternatives in the hope that they will be acceptable is to court losing the work to fully-compliant competitors. However, some exports markets and customers need to rely on external resources and guidance from larger and well-refined markets. This reliance can be very subtle and render otherwise generally acceptable suppliers and products uncompetitive, or exclude them completely from the market.

The March of Global Standards and the Single Market

Globally accepted standards are great facilitators of international trade. Where a product is quite complex it certainly helps to know that is complies with standards that you (or the local regulatory authorities) are already familiar with and can trust. In reality many standards are produced by international bodies and are the same in the UK, Japan or Germany, with perhaps minor national variations. There is also considerable interchange between European Standards (Euronorms) and International Standards. Hence the expansion of International Standards effectively to supersede national standards and fill obvious needs.

Somewhat less obvious, mandatory regulation is also expanding and effectively following the lead of the more advanced practices. The Single Market (and wider EEA) is the home of many businesses which are well versed in working to International and European Standards and which follow well-refined conformity and regulatory practices, thus making it somewhat of a low risk trend-setter. The European Commission is also happy if others (particularly individual non-EU countries) follow its lead (The Brussels Effect), while for those planning to join the EU, it is necessary to do so. Also, there can be formal agreements which effectively extend the EU’s mandatory regulatory practices into particular products and markets outside the EEA. In summary, it is a complex, ever evolving subject.

World-leading product but still excluded from an export market

It is not surprising, therefore, to be confronted in an export market with a plethora of well-known European and/or International Standards, along with conformity assessment or regulation modelled on EU/EEA practices. Such imitation can extend as far as using documentation that in part has clearly been re-badged from previous use inside the EEA; it keeps the costs and risks of preparation down. It can also be advantageous to reputable organisations to point out that they vigorously follow these often high and demanding, standards and practices, while at the same time being ‘outside the loop’ can be detrimental to other companies.

Being ‘unfairly’ excluded from profitable business rarely leads to robust or legal challenges against the potential customer by the unsuccessful vendor; as a minimum, very deep pockets are needed which small enterprises obviously do not possess. It is even rarer for unsuccessful vendors eventually to win the work after having caused delays, bad feeling and extra costs. Once excluded because of non-conformity it is difficult and costly for a company to get back into its given export market again. This is especially the case with capital goods or complex products; re-design, re-testing and conformity re-assessment don’t come cheap.

The Invisible Competitor

The subtle influence of the Single Market (and wider EEA) extends far beyond the borders of its Member States. This extent of that influence is impossible to determine. Even knowing it is there usually requires considerable perception, industry knowledge and exposure to the export markets involved. Yet this influence can make it more difficult or even impossible for organisations (especially smaller enterprises) that don’t follow the EEA’s standards, conformity assessment and regulatory practices to do business in some export markets.

In future, unless there is a re-think of the Government’s Brexit policy, the UK may face problems in accessing some highly attractive export markets outside mainland Europe because of the reach of the Single Market and EEA.

The Deeper Malaise behind Mrs May’s Inept Handling of Brexit

The European Union Carried on by Other Means

Mrs May is a product of the past and this shows in her poor political leadership and shambolic handling of the Article 50 negotiations, which are currently going in the direction of a Brexit in name only. The past to which I refer is the culture of increasing political deference to the European Union (EU) and dependency which goes back to Edward Heath and has been continued by subsequent Conservative and Labour prime ministers up to the present day. Over a period of years, it has evolved into a paradigm (or conceptual framework of ideas, assumptions and perceived wisdom) which set the direction for many subsequent policies and actions. The only notable exception to this past paradigm is (perhaps) Mrs Thatcher who claimed to be inspired by free market economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman. Unfortunately, only at the end of her premiership, for example, in her famous “no, no, no” speech did she stand up to the EUs centralising control freaks and arrogant ideologues and only after being deposed from office did she advocate leaving the EU.

Escape from (conservative) Reality into the EU

At the heart of any notionally conservative party is a major dilemma for its strategists and leaders:- how to expand its popular base beyond the core support of the conservative minded, the sort of people who make up the majority of party members. This means, in effect, developing a second unique selling proposition rather than making traditional conservatism popular among many. Tory strategists believed that they needed to project an image, though not necessarily a reality, of eclectic, inclusive modernity. At one time, the EU appeared to provide this modernity. It could, therefore, be accepted for political expediency even if it contradicted core values or British national interests.

The EU comfort zone for Politicians and Public Servants

For any prime minister, regardless of political label – and also for the Civil Service – the EU provides a useful comfort zone. There is the appearance of eclectic modernity, a ‘world stage’ on which to strut, a means of escaping responsibility and the respectful acceptance by equals and their subordinates. Simple, just follow the EU’s (mainly greater German) social, political, economic, regulatory, monetary and fiscal lead. Who wouldn’t find this reassuring especially as it offers an escape from political turbulence and the need to be competent while providing a means of avoiding blame should any major mistakes become public?

The EU’s corrupting comfort zone

The uninviting (and courageous) alternative to the EU’s comfort zone requires a Prime Minister who is to be accused by opponents of being insular, parochial, jingoistic, elitist, ‘out in the cold’, ‘out of step’ with the EU and/or ‘behind the times’. Small wonder Edward Heath’s successors became such EU-centric ‘modernity’ idealists who were prepared to deceive the public whilst selling out British national interests and sovereignty. Mrs May would need to be a very determined person to escape the strong force of this ingrained political behaviour, going back over forty years.

The EU undermines UK Governmental competence

As ever more activities of government were transferred to the EU over the last forty odd years there has been a hollowing out of competence, though not necessarily of numbers, in the Civil Service. The result is that in many fields the expertise and motivation required by the government of a sovereign country no longer exists within the UK. As a newly-independent country it will take time to re-establish missing expertise and then achieve positive results in our national interest.

The Referendum Vote for Brexit caused a paradigm shift

Times have changed. The 17,410,742 voters who backed Brexit in the 2016 Referendum have decided the EU is not the future which they want for our country. This is a major paradigm shift with wide-ranging long-term implications. The EU is now the past and modernity is being redefined as embracing exciting future possibilities outside its claustrophobic clutches. The new modernity has not yet solidified into a paradigm and can potentially include anything from re-invigorating democracy with a more collaborative form of government to re-discovering world leading skills based on long standing national strengths, heritage and culture. For more on this, see The National CV .

Mrs May is failing to adapt to the new Brexit inspired modernity

Mrs May is having considerable difficulty elucidating a new post-Brexit vision to accord with the Referendum’s paradigm shift and resulting new modernity. She is stuck in the obsolete paradigm. Dependence and deference to the EU is so ingrained into the structure of No. 10 Downing Street that Mrs May can’t let go of the past and the old EU-centric view of modernity. There is little or no evidence of her using Brexit as a great facilitator for tackling the big issues facing our country. Instead, her mindset is rooted in the spin, language, actions and policies of the past.

Talk of ‘A deep and special relationship with our European partners’ is more a cry for continuing belonging than a confident assertion of independence. Worse still, the EU has been allowed to make the running with Mrs May, Mr Davis and the Department for (not) Exiting the European Union repeatedly caving in to its increasingly unreasonable demands. At the moment, the worst legacy of these cave-ins is the appalling Transition Deal which would make this country into a temporary then a permanent EU vassal state. There is also, to highlight a few others, the surrendering of UK fisheries, defence and defence procurement to EU bureaucrats and the enthusiasm to allow British citizens to be subject to the worst justice systems in the EU through the retention of the European Arrest Warrant.

The EEA/EFTA Paradox

Whilst obviously being unwilling to leave control by the political EU, Mrs May somewhat enigmatically chose to leave the existing frictionless trading simplicity of membership of the Single Market (and wider European Economic Area, EEA). She has never explained why this reckless decision was made without a practical plan for leaving the EU which would still allow us to retain near frictionless trade.

However, gullibility and ignorance are hinted at in her Lancaster House speech 17th January 2017 where she appears to have accepted the disingenuous claims of the EU leaders regarding the inviolate nature of the four freedoms. In reality, the EU is happy to break these principles when convenient so to do. For example, the EU’s proposed Withdrawal Agreement, Article 13 (Protocols NI) allows the EU or the UK, amongst other things, unilaterally to restrict immigration from the other party (to the agreement). In other words the EU can restrict immigration into the remaining Member States from the UK, and the UK can restrict immigration from the remaining Member States into the UK.

Nowhere to hide

A policy of spin and handing over more and more political decisions to the EU no longer cuts it post-Referendum. Endless vacuous mantras and blaming the EU for failing to deliver a successful, opportunity filled Brexit is sounding increasingly unconvincing outside the Westminster bubble. With time running out, the country needs to know the truth. Mrs May probably already knows what she must do to save Brexit from being in name only and to prevent trade with the EU facing severe disruption. The only viable option is to re-join the free nations of Europe in The European Free Trade Association (EFTA) whilst temporarily remaining in the single market under much more flexible and favourable conditions in a bespoke version of the EEA Agreement. (further information see The EFTA/EEA Solution to the Current Brexit Impasse, Brexit Reset, Eureferendum.com, various posts on Campaign for an Independent Britain and affiliates)

Moving onto this escape route (from the EU with the least potential disruption to existing trade) in the coming crisis will need effective crisis management and something like a modern day Brexit Operation Dynamo. Will Mrs May deliver or should the Conservative Party expeditiously choose someone else who can?

An improvised emergency operation is needed to extract our country from the European Union (EU) just as in the early summer of 1940 the original Operation Dynamo was required to rescue the British Expeditionary Force (BEF) from occupied Europe. And, as with the original, it will include a motley collection of ordinary people helping out under professional direction, since Mrs May’s government cannot do it alone. As the days pass, the urgency becomes greater and our plight more desperate. There is no tangible Brexit progress under Mrs May’s leadership and with the rule-bound control-freak EU, ‘nothing is agreed until everything is agreed’. The two options seem to be to accept the EU’s terms or let highly integrated trade with the Single Market (and wider European Economic Area, EEA) face huge disruption after we leave.

Mrs May has boxed us into an ever smaller dead end

Mrs May has seemingly left herself with no options apart from accepting the EU’s increasingly demanding terms in order to deliver frictionless trade with the Single Market and wider EEA, along with a soft border in Ireland. All imaginary technical solutions and customs partnerships or unions have already been rejected by the EU. In any case the government doesn’t have a stellar record of delivering complex IT projects to specification, on time and within budget. Further, it is membership of the Single Market (or EEA) that delivers near frictionless trade, between members not participation in a customs union.

Rather than being trapped under EU hegemony, which is what Mrs May is leading us towards, we could remain in the Single Market under different, much more flexible conditions by re-joining the free nations of Europe in the European Free Trade Association (EFTA). The EFTA/EEA route is a far better way of enabling us on 29th March 2019 to leave the political EU and its alien, autocratic straightjacket whilst still trading, as now, with the Single Market. As a temporary measure. it could buy time for FTA negotiations. (see also here, Brexit Reset, Eureferendum.com)

The EEA Agreement, with its Annexes and Protocols, determines how the EFTA countries participate in the EEA. This agreement is regularly amended to suit the interests of the participating EFTA countries – each country has its own variation. Hence by taking the existing off-the-shelf versions we could adapt them to produce our own bespoke version to suit our needs and then at a later date, revise it as many times as we so desire to correct errors and customise it further to suit our needs and as conditions change.

The Free Nations of EFTA are Our Brexit Rescue Partners

Any EFTA/EEA negotiation, unlike the EU Article 50 negotiations, would be a collaboration not an adversarial confrontation, and would be conducted within a different environment. Such a negotiation would involve amending the EEA Agreement to improve it, in both our and our EFTA partners’ interests. And their expertise built up over many years would be invaluable. This would also go some way to making amends for Mrs May’s betrayal of EFTA by deciding to leave the Single Market (and wider EEA), and leaving them out of any negotiations.

Key Items for the UK EFTA/EEA Agreement

We need our version of the EEA Agreement positively to address our major national interests, in particular, near frictionless trade and control of immigration. Frictionless trade is mainly about dealing with technical issues so that existing arrangements can be retained without introducing new barriers. Control of immigration concerns strengthening existing arrangements in the EEA Agreement (Article 112, the Safeguard Measures). These would already allow us unilaterally to manage immigration. However, in the UK there are permanent economic, infrastructural and societal factors which would justify introducing specific clauses to strengthen the right to retain permanent control of migration.

Stakeholder Working Groups for frictionless Trade

Delivering near frictionless trade is where the bulk of the work in amending the EEA Agreement would be needed, as it must cover a wide range of economic activities from aeronautics to zoology. This is obviously beyond the competence of Mrs May, Mr Davis or the Department for (not) Exiting the European Union. Yet untapped real expertise exists amongst the various (industry) stakeholders who are already familiar with relevant EU/EEA legislation and working practices. These people would be highly motivated to solve any issues, once they recognise the government’s limitations, since their livelihoods often, in part at least, depend on frictionless trade. Multiple working groups from industry can function concurrently, whilst learning from each other and ‘comparing notes’ to speed up their ‘learning curves’. The inclusion of public consultations and publication of drafts could add considerable transparency to their activities, whilst moving the process away from destructive political in-fighting.

Preventing Abuse of the EEA Agreement

The EU doesn’t want us back as a troublesome full member state. As an EU vassal state, they can get everything they want from us. However, it would be prudent to send a strong message to EU ‘fifth columnists’ that the EFTA/EEA agreement cannot be subverted – that it must always be used for its original purpose to provide access to the Single Market for free European nations (i.e., those outside the EU).

Brexit’s Operation Dynamo can be made to work

It is all straightforward project management, not rocket science, and much less risky than Mrs May’s fraught and furtive Article 50 negotiations. For starters, it need to: address resourcing requirements; build competences; set objectives, priorities and timetables; manage risks and co-ordinate efforts. This is merely following a systematic document preparation process, which can be adapted to build in various procedures, checks, controls and risk mitigation measures. Many industry specialists do this sort of thing all the time, for example, under the aegis of the British Standards Institution. There may also need to be continuity planning to keep trade moving under existing arrangements until the EFTA/EEA bespoke UK EEA Agreement can be fully adopted. This would not be difficult since we would be staying in the EEA anyway. Work carried out now and resources developed could also be useful in the years to come in developing international trade and reforming the Single Market.

Other Lessons from the Original Operation Dynamo

The original Operation Dynamo was a collective effort of improvisation in a short time – it worked better than expected in a national crisis. It provided a hard lesson about the pitfalls of insular complacency and laid foundations for a future national cooperative effort. A new crisis is coming as a consequence of Mrs May’s shambolic negotiations and recklessness in deciding to leave the Single Market without a plan for frictionless trade. Just as in 1940, we need a committed, courageous and practical prime minister. Is Mrs May the person? I’ll let you decide!